If anyone needs proof that Britons (well, these two at the very least) absolutely expect to accept no responsibility for anything, they just have to read this article — Motorists lose speed camera case:
Idris Francis, of Petersfield, Hants, and Gerard O’Halloran, from London, argued that current rules forced car owners to incriminate themselves.
They said human rights were breached by making a car’s owner name the driver if the vehicle is caught speeding.
…
Judges acknowledged that both men had been faced compulsion to provide information, but threw out their claim that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are “absolute rights”.
Their judgement noted that people “who choose to keep and drive cars” have implicitly “accepted certain responsibilities” under UK law.
…
Mr Francis said after the verdict: “The fight for freedom goes on. We can’t allow the tyrants, who are taking away our rights, to succeed. They have to be stopped.”
OMFG. ‘The fight for freedom’? Do they realise how fucking ludicrous they sound?
Comments
29 June 2007
10:52
Sam
Well said. They have done themselves no service by ranting and carrying on the way they have…it was a ridiculous case and ECHR’s response highlights that.
Sam
29 June 2007
11:13
Andrea
IMHO, they should be embarrassed for thinking they could get away with it in the first place!
1 July 2007
23:51
Idris Francis
It is always difficult to debate any issue with people who don’t know what they are talking about, so here are a just a few of the relevant points for those who do not understand even the basic principles of freedom and criminal justice, including the right to a fair trial and the defences that must be available to individuals when facing the almost unlimited powers of the state:
1/ Both cases were supported by Liberty, at no cost to the applicants, and the lead QC, Ben Emerson, is one of the top human rights QCs in the country.
2/ Every lawyer I know, and every magistrate’s opinion I have heard, confirms my view of the vital importance of the right to silence
3/ Although we lost 15/2, the Polish and Dutch judges posted vehement dissenting opinions, pointing out that the overall judgement breached previous ECHR principles and verdicts, said that the applicants are right, that it is wrong in principle that those defending minor charges find themselves in a worse position than murderers, rapists etc etc or those who have killed by dangerous driving - all of whom retain the right to silence as does EVERY OTHER CLASS OF CRIMINAL IN BRITAIN.
That judgement is available on the ECHR web site now.
They 2 dissenting judges said that it is perfectly obvious that the reason the right to silence has been taken away is the sheer scale of charges - and that until now it has always been an unbreakable principle that important rights such as these can NOT be breached for mere administrative convenience.
In any case, as for the case being “ridiculous” - if that were the case, why did the ECHR ITSELF decide to hear it not in the usual court of 7 judges, but in the top court of all, the Grand Chamber of 21 judges? The reason they did was, as they said, was that these were cases of absolutely fundamental importance to 300m drivers.
Two other points - although I started my case on basic principles of justice and freedom, I soon found that the effect of speed camera policy is massively perverse, and has now been directly responsible in large part for the deteriorating fatality trend that has killed IN EXCESS OF 10,000 MORE PEOPLE since cameras came in than would have been expected at that time.
Finally - if you do not know what is happening to justice and freedom in this country, read a new book (if you are capable of doing so) called “Taking Liberties” or see the cinema film.
Do you know that you can now be put under house arrest IN BRITAIN by the police, without the involvement of any court, without any opportunity to defend yourself, without being told what offence you are supposed to have committed, or are suspected of committing in the future - and that under that order, you may not use the internet, speak to anyone on the phone other than a few on an offical list, may not move far from your house at any time and not at all in curfew hours from 7pm to 7am? Or therefore work,earn aliving or carry on any sort of life? With no need for any evidence against you?
Or that the police can give you an ASBO on the basis of hearsay evidence, and if you break the ASBO twice you can go to jail - without ever having done anything wrong?
Don’t believe it? The read the book or see the film.
“The price of freedom is eternnal vigilance ” and all you prats seem to be capable of is slanging off people like me who are exercising that vigilance in your behalf
WAKE UP FOR GOD’S SAKE
and when you have time to spare - read http://www.safespeed.org.uk about the utter tragedy that S172 and speed cameras have caused.
I have spent 15 years of unpaid time and tens of thousands of pounds fighting to the fundamental freedoms that we are fast losing - and there are times. such as when I read your fatuous and uninformed comments, when I wonder why I bother
Idris Francis
2 July 2007
02:36
Tutu
He sounds seriously pissed…
…maybe the camera got his bad side?
2 July 2007
08:48
andrea
Haha, Tutu.
Dude, whoever you are, I’m not debating the legality of the case. Just that this PC human rights thing makes no common sense at all. Also, I’m from Singapore, so all your talk about how repressive the UK is means nothing, because Singapore is so much worse.
Post a comment